Good thing Ford stuck with the assembly line manned by people, those mechanized robots would never had lasted in the car making business. Good thing We still use the original windows.. I mean it was perfect, imagine a world with some fancy platform, that gates guy is a mastermind.

Good thing linux never has new developments and releases.. we all know it was perfect.

What world do you live in man? Not all change is good change, but constant attempts to improve the process and product always .. ALWAYS helps in success.

grifftron wrote:Just leave it alone and keep the BETA process... why try to change what is good already? Everyone knows BETA maps can change during the process.. just drop it geez.

Every process should be constantly under review and improved and improved when possible..

that is um called growth of product and business.

attend many seminars do you?

Yeah, every map does go thru this process already genius, its called BETA... EVERY CC player has the chance to play the map and complain about any faults it has, it has worked for years, and now your brilliant mind wants to put together a team of 10k games or more to work out the kinks of each map... every user looking at a map is a lot better then a group of 6 bud.

‹army of nobunaga› me and so many other people including people in your own clan look at you as a joke

The point that was being argued in this thread was that the testing could be done sooner. Several people have mentioned that the beta testing phase would be retained, but testing prior to herculean efforts on graphics could save a lot of time and effort. The issue that army was trying to address was the valid concern that testing maps at an alpha stage might be too risky for the genpop.

Well, perhaps I should have said "too risky to the general wellbeing of the site if performed by the genpop." Some people complain bitterly and unceasingly about beta maps, and an exploit in a map, say, like in the early version of Rorke's Drift, can do drastic things to the scoreboard. Imagine the chaos if an even more exploitable map appeared under alpha test.

ender516 wrote:... The issue that army was trying to address was the valid concern that testing maps at an alpha stage might be too risky for the genpop.

And these risks are... what, exactly?

To be frank, people like yourself for example... under 200 games, yes awesome rank yadda yadda.. but would you know the main difference between an Austerlitz and a US Sentate? I mean what reall makes the maps both different.. No and I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

I remember in my first degree I had to take some class called music appreciation.. I thought "What a lame ass class, easy A" .. Well I learned there is SO much more to music than I had ever any clue about. And I learned enough to know that I STILL do not have any clue about music.

Take my knowledge of CC... I promise you.. I swear to you, it pales besides the knowledge of a LFAW or a King Herpes.. I mean those guys have forgotten more about the intricacies of CC than I have eb\ever known. It takes games to know what is up, it takes playing against cooks to conquerors to know what is up.

It is dangerous to have OUR site vested from general population of dumdums that do not even understand how much they do not know.

And this is our game and our site. I have invested thousands of dollars and double that in hours. The map makers have invested their talent and thousands of man hours... We are all vested.

And thus to conclude... We deserve a continuing better process of map development, and we deserve the player 'experts' of CC that know more about this game to help in the process... And that is what we all deserve. This game that is just a game, can end at any time. I have played games that I was vested in, that ended.

We are all entitled to trying to make sure lack makes enough damn money and grows this business, to ensure the continual life of our vestment. And that is fact.

ender516 wrote:Well, perhaps I should have said "too risky to the general wellbeing of the site if performed by the genpop." Some people complain bitterly and unceasingly about beta maps, and an exploit in a map, say, like in the early version of Rorke's Drift, can do drastic things to the scoreboard. Imagine the chaos if an even more exploitable map appeared under alpha test.

Which is exactly why "alpha" games should be unrated. Imagine the lack of chaos if there were no points riding on these games and it was clearly explained that these maps were not finished and this was just testing.

To be frank, people like yourself for example... under 200 games, yes awesome rank yadda yadda.. but would you know the main difference between an Austerlitz and a US Sentate? I mean what reall makes the maps both different.. No and I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

...It takes games to know what is up, it takes playing against cooks to conquerors to know what is up.

It is dangerous to have OUR site vested from general population of dumdums that do not even understand how much they do not know.

And this is our game and our site. I have invested thousands of dollars and double that in hours. The map makers have invested their talent and thousands of man hours... We are all vested.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you, I'm trying to improve the map-making process and the site.

This started with a discussion about the declining quality of maps being produced. I think the reason for this is that the existing map-making process stifles creativity and innovation because it doesn't allow for experimentation (or at least makes it extremely inefficient). I don't claim to know everything about the maps or map-making, but as a programmer, I know software development, which is what map-making boils down to. If programmers could not test their applications throughout the development process, software innovation would stagnate, and we would still be stuck in the "dark ages" of DOS.

Obviously, good players should be involved and their opinions given more weight, but anyone can make valuable suggestions. Testing needs idiots to make maps "idiot-proof". Inexperienced players may try "illogical" strategies which can uncover problems that the experts would have missed. An elitist attitude that only the best of the best are qualified to judge new maps is inefficient, narrow-minded, and makes it difficult for new ideas to ever have a chance. That is the real danger.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I have serious doubt it can happens without implement other things that i'm still waiting.

But I have a strange question that goes in an opposite direction: Why maps should be tested first? How many maps had to pass through a graphics overhaul because the gameplay had flaws? When this happened? I remember that Das Schloss introduced the Beta stage, it was done to not wait the conclusion of all games, not to test if the map work in the proper way, the purpose was different imo. Then after that map the worst beta test was rorke's drift and in that case we had to close the map because it was the first time we had to reduce the number of territories and lackattack was forced to change a couple of things in the database to do that, so it wasn't possible to change the map with ongoing games.Honestly I don't remember a map released by CAs and approved by the community at large that had so big flaw to set a testing process to ensure that your gameplay is fine.

Speaking frankly, the Beta stage is not test the map and see if it works before to launch it, but ensure that everything works in the right way before to not allow more changes on it. It's different.If someone is not willing to apply some minor changes to a map after that is released, then....don't start to draw a map at all, at least here on CC. Sorry but this is the flat and real truth.If someone is not able to choose a type of gameplay and go in that direction, then that person probably has not understood our guidelines and how we do maps here.

When and if I'll be able to upload for you all the files and when and if the owner of the site will be open to have a testing ground for maps, then this discussion will have a sense, for now, in my opinion , we are just discussing about nothing. Moreover this was suggested several times by people and also CAs and I doubt that a game testing phase, a part what we have now, will happen in the near future.

Said that, if it was asked to me (and in general new foundry additions are asked to us, the CAs), I would push for have new xml features instead of a place where i can test the same old things, so don't expect I will put this on the top of the list of things to do/to have.

Certainly the process can be changed, refined, and to be honest we're discussing something on this line behind the scenes (we will go with a public review this time since we want a process that suit for you all and not only for us), but add a stage just for the sake of a person that wasn't able to find out the best gameplay for his map....sorry not at all.

I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to speak frankly since I know how things work here and how much difficult is to have things for the foundry.If I will have a card to play, I will not burn it for a single man, but I choose the card that can make happy more people mapmakers.

Nobodies

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

ender516 wrote:... The issue that army was trying to address was the valid concern that testing maps at an alpha stage might be too risky for the genpop.

And these risks are... what, exactly?

To be frank, people like yourself for example... under 200 games, yes awesome rank yadda yadda.. but would you know the main difference between an Austerlitz and a US Sentate? I mean what reall makes the maps both different.. No and I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

I remember in my first degree I had to take some class called music appreciation.. I thought "What a lame ass class, easy A" .. Well I learned there is SO much more to music than I had ever any clue about. And I learned enough to know that I STILL do not have any clue about music.

Take my knowledge of CC... I promise you.. I swear to you, it pales besides the knowledge of a LFAW or a King Herpes.. I mean those guys have forgotten more about the intricacies of CC than I have eb\ever known. It takes games to know what is up, it takes playing against cooks to conquerors to know what is up.

It is dangerous to have OUR site vested from general population of dumdums that do not even understand how much they do not know.

And this is our game and our site. I have invested thousands of dollars and double that in hours. The map makers have invested their talent and thousands of man hours... We are all vested.

And thus to conclude... We deserve a continuing better process of map development, and we deserve the player 'experts' of CC that know more about this game to help in the process... And that is what we all deserve. This game that is just a game, can end at any time. I have played games that I was vested in, that ended.

We are all entitled to trying to make sure lack makes enough damn money and grows this business, to ensure the continual life of our vestment. And that is fact.

I know eggsactly what u taking bout, like craazy dude, that meth was niiice!!!

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

thenobodies80 wrote:Why maps should be tested first? How many maps had to pass through a graphics overhaul because the gameplay had flaws? When this happened? I remember that Das Schloss introduced the Beta stage, it was done to not wait the conclusion of all games, not to test if the map work in the proper way, the purpose was different imo. Then after that map the worst beta test was rorke's drift and in that case we had to close the map because it was the first time we had to reduce the number of territories and lackattack was forced to change a couple of things in the database to do that, so it wasn't possible to change the map with ongoing games.Honestly I don't remember a map released by CAs and approved by the community at large that had so big flaw to set a testing process to ensure that your gameplay is fine.

you fail to see the point of a testing site. it is not just to iron out kinks and flaws but most importantly to encourage wild creativity. even if i'm not anywhere near as active in the foundry as i used to be i often find myself thinking of various map scenarios that are generally very weird. with a testing facility in place and an easy intuitive interface for defining terits and bonuses (like landgrab has) i could draw up a sketch, define the bonuses and have a game ready for testing in a matter of minutes. test the idea and see if it's bullshit or genius.

at this moment most maps don't stray too far away from the classic recipe, hence beta only caters to minor changes. whatever maps vary to much will most likely have flaws. some easily fixable via the xml (like aybabtu) others harder or even impossible (like rorke's drift). on rorke's drift i feel even with the new bonus scheme and gameplay changes the map is completely flawed from the start. one of its biggest problem (chieftain bonuses) still exists and whoever gets the first chieftain will win the game 99% of the time. but changing this will require some big graphic changes and we might not even get the solution the first time, hence i won't bother pursuing it further since it will mean a lot of potentially unnecessary work for koontz. these things should have been figured out and fixed long before the graphics phase.

anyway, the idea is that without a testing facility many people are too afraid to try completely new things for fear of having to do massive changes and scratch a lot of their work so they just stick to classic variations and that's it.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

I've had the experience that I've created a map with a certain kind of gameplay in mind, and when the map went to beta, it turned out the map didn't actually play out at all like I had imagined. But at that point, since the map is in beta, making adjustments to the gameplay is really stiff and inflexible - since every small change requires you to wait for it to be uploaded, then wait for the new version to be played by people, hearing feedback, complaints etc. - I really had no choice but to "discard" the idea I originally had of the gameplay and just tweak the map enough that it plays well and is balanced.

Sure, with experience you get more of a hang of what plays like what, but this only applies to gameplay elements you're already familiar with, and certainly does not encourage to innovate or create something new or unusual. Ultimately, it will lead to stagnation, especially with the scarcity of new xml updates.

And even if we do get new xml updates, and they are something that allow truly new kind of gameplay, how do we know how they actually work for the gameplay when we don't get to test them? Every new feature requires mapmakers to just stumble on blindly, since there's no collective experience on using the feature, and the more complex features we get, the more chance there is that the first maps using that feature are going to be flawed and imbalanced.

Degaston makes an excellent point about needing a wide range of users, and I agree that unrated games would be useful for this and other reasons (solitaire games to build skills, for example). But lackattack will have none of that. Ah, well.

On a different note, I can scarcely believe that I have been involved in this discussion this long and forgot to mention the Map XML Wizard. It has a test play feature which allows for at least some experimentation. Unfortunately, as chipv is no longer supporting his tools, it is not completely compliant to current XML features. The biggest missing bit is the optional maximum on the number of starting positions per player, which makes difficult to explore the ramifications of drops and starts, which is one of the most common topics of gameplay discussion, namely, how do we ensure that the game is not over before it has scarcely begun.

...but add a stage just for the sake of a person that wasn't able to find out the best gameplay for his map....

and

If I will have a card to play, I will not burn it for a single man, but I choose the card that can make happy more people mapmakers.

seem to be contradicted by

Moreover this was suggested several times by people and also CAs...

No, it's not. This because I have a list of things that was asked, and that one is not at the top. XML new features are instead. Anyway, I'm not saying that your idea is bullshit.I'm fine with having the possibility to test maps, just it won't happen, at least in the near future...trust me. I hadn't a way to test Africa II, and it's supposed to be a "special map". Do you think that this possiblity would be given to everyone? For what I know the only map involved in a sort of test was Colosseum, but I didn't take part to it, so I can't help you with details.

Nobodies

edit: ender made a good point about xml wizard.....if only lack will implement it (and update)....it can be used to test map.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

koontz1973 wrote:I know this may seem a silly question but has anyone tried to ask him for the code?

Yes and I don't think he wants to part with it. There's, btw, yet another person who was contributing hugely to this site, and eventually got frustrated and left due to lack of support from the top... sound familiar? Hell, there's a whole another website of people with the same story out there...

thenobodies80 wrote:I hadn't a way to test Africa II, and it's supposed to be a "special map". Do you think that this possiblity would be given to everyone? For what I know the only map involved in a sort of test was Colosseum, but I didn't take part to it, so I can't help you with details.

Yeah, because you're only the foreman of the 2nd-class foundry... really useful features, like playtesting, are reserved for the super-special secret foundry...

ender516 wrote:I wish I had the time to reverse engineer and reproduce chipv's work.

I know this may seem a silly question but has anyone tried to ask him for the code?

I believe I asked for a peek long before he left, and he was shy about it then. I doubt that he would be feeling more open now.

Without knowing the first thing about programming, how hard would it be to do this for the site in case chips one goes off line permanently? Add in what has been said, a testing procedure and what we then have is a guaranteed xml writer and testing programme for the map makers to play with.

I can guarantee, if it ever did go off-line, the amount of maps produced and complex large maps would almost cease overnight. Only the hard core map makers would continue.

ender516 wrote:I wish I had the time to reverse engineer and reproduce chipv's work.

I know this may seem a silly question but has anyone tried to ask him for the code?

I believe I asked for a peek long before he left, and he was shy about it then. I doubt that he would be feeling more open now.

Without knowing the first thing about programming, how hard would it be to do this for the site in case chips one goes off line permanently?

the real question here is: "how hard would it be for lack to do it?"

A lot easier than it would be for anyone else to do it.

I saw an old interview with him that indicated that he quit his job to run this web site. Is he still actively involved in this, or is it just kind of running on autopilot and the free labor of people who want it to be better?